Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has firmly rejected allegations by Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, that the agency is being deployed by political opponents to harass him and members of his administration, describing the claims as unfounded, misleading and damaging to public trust in state institutions. The anti-graft body said the accusations reflect a deliberate attempt to politicise lawful investigations and divert attention from issues of accountability and governance.
In a strongly worded statement, the Commission expressed what it termed “great displeasure” at Governor Mohammed’s remarks, in which he alleged that the EFCC was acting at the behest of political rivals, particularly the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. The agency stressed that it operates as an independent, non-partisan institution established by law to combat economic and financial crimes across Nigeria, regardless of political affiliation or status.
The EFCC maintained that no political office holder, past or present, has the authority to influence its investigative or prosecutorial activities. According to the Commission, attempts to portray it as a pliable instrument of political vendetta are mischievous and undermine the integrity of Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework. It insisted that its mandate is carried out strictly in accordance with the law and guided by evidence, not political considerations.
Responding directly to Governor Mohammed’s assertions, the EFCC described it as derogatory and misleading to suggest that its activities in Bauchi State were linked to the influence of the FCT minister or any other political figure. The agency emphasised that its investigations are driven by intelligence, petitions and findings from painstaking financial analysis, not by external pressure from political actors.
The Commission also drew attention to Governor Mohammed’s own legal history, noting that he was standing trial on money laundering charges at the time he was elected governor. It stated that the case was only halted due to the constitutional immunity from prosecution enjoyed by sitting governors, not because of any lack of evidence or political interference. The EFCC questioned who allegedly influenced the Commission when it initiated investigations against Mohammed as far back as 2016 and subsequently charged him to court, long before current political alignments.
On the specific allegations involving officials of the Bauchi State Government, the EFCC said the facts of the matter have already been placed before the court of law. It noted that the charges filed are public documents and urged Nigerians to examine them independently to determine whether the cases are products of vendetta or the outcome of lawful and thorough investigations. The agency explained that Governor Mohammed’s name appears in the charge sheets because, as the approving authority in the state, his role is central to the transactions under scrutiny.
Addressing claims linked to terrorism financing, the Commission dismissed suggestions that it was overreaching or inventing offences. It stressed that the laws governing terrorism financing and related financial crimes are well established under Nigerian and international legal frameworks. Where credible evidence suggests that offences may have been committed, the EFCC said it would be derelict in its duty to ignore such matters, regardless of the political sensitivity involved.
The anti-graft agency also criticised what it described as selective outrage within Nigeria’s political class, arguing that accusations of persecution are often raised only when opposition figures are investigated. According to the EFCC, it is hypocritical for politicians to cry foul when their allies or party members are called to account, while remaining silent when similar actions are taken against members of the ruling party. The Commission pointed out that it recently arraigned a high-ranking member of the ruling party over alleged corruption without provoking claims of political persecution from any quarter.
The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of heightened political tension and increasing scrutiny of public finances across several Nigerian states. Anti-corruption agencies have intensified investigations into allegations of mismanagement, diversion of funds and abuse of office, as public pressure mounts for greater transparency and accountability amid economic challenges and widespread hardship.
Analysts note that disputes between elected officials and anti-corruption bodies are not new in Nigeria’s political landscape, where investigations are often interpreted through partisan lenses. However, governance experts warn that repeated claims of persecution, when not backed by evidence, risk eroding public confidence in institutions tasked with safeguarding the nation’s financial integrity.
In its concluding remarks, the EFCC urged Governor Mohammed to focus on the responsibilities of governance and service delivery in Bauchi State, rather than casting aspersions on institutions performing their statutory duties. The Commission reiterated its commitment to cleaning up Nigeria’s financial system and enforcing accountability without fear or favour, in line with its legal mandate.
As legal proceedings involving Bauchi State officials continue, the unfolding situation is expected to test the resilience of Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions and the willingness of political leaders to submit to scrutiny under the rule of law. For many observers, the episode underscores the enduring tension between politics and accountability in Africa’s most populous democracy, and the broader challenge of ensuring that anti-corruption efforts remain credible, independent and effective.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments